Not even Obama, much as he would no doubt like to, can simply `erase’ a Constitutional amendment. It can only be repealed by the passage & ratification by 38 state legislatures of a brand new amendment.

Look up the 18th amendment (Prohibition) and the amendment which repealed it (the 21st) and see just how easy that was.

2 posted on 12/19/2012 1:04:12 PM PST by elcid1970
("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")

Can he unilaterally overturn immigration laws and openly refuse to enforce federal laws such as DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) without Congressional approval? I’d just be curious to know if he can do that.. Just curious..

You can dilute it until it is effectively repealed, because it cannot be enforced. That’s what all those court cases are about. New constitutional rights are invented, old ones disregarded or studiously ignored. It was like that back in the beginning, with the Alien and Sedition Act.

Not even Obama, much as he would no doubt like to, can simply `erase a Constitutional amendment. It can only be repealed by the passage & ratification by 38 state legislatures of a brand new amendment.

Oh, for crying out loud!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, [the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, etc.]."

Become a Declarationist - you'll sleep better at night.

An elitist scum like Obama can issue gun edicts for the peasantry from behind his battalion of Secret Service agents armed with submachine guns all he wants. It doesn't change the immortal words of the Declaration.

29 posted on 12/19/2012 7:37:55 PM PST by kiryandil
(turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))

>>>Not even Obama, much as he would no doubt like to, can simply `erase a Constitutional amendment.

Sure he can. He waits (and socialists are VERY good at being patient) until he had 1...maybe 2 more seats on the courts open up...and replaces them with people like Ginsberg or Kagan. Then...there is another challenge to the 2nd...like Houston v Moore; Maxwell v Dow; Poe v Ullman; Laird v Tatum or Perpich v DoD. It is then determined that the phrase "a well regulated militia" means the military....in spite of 200 years worth of USSC findings and the writings of the framers.

I have always found it funny that so many liberals spew the militia=military not individual right mantra when it has been CLEARLY established by the supremes...OVER AND OVER again...as early as 1820 (when some of the framers were still alive and didn't dissent to this interpretation)...that the second is for the individual. I mean, there has never been a question...except in the mind of the leftist.